Who Says Frogs are Ugly?
Sometimes in this blog, I wonder if I'm writing too much about AT&T's bid to takeover T-Mobile. Reporters tell me they are tired of the story. I'm tired, too.
But every time I think we've hit a quiet lull in the news coverage of this fight, AT&T's PR and lobbying shop fills in the void.
Consider this statement by Jim Cicconi, AT&T's top lobbyist. Cicconi, didn't like a filing that Sprint made at the FCC yesterday one bit. Here's what he told Politico yesterday:
"Being accused of inconsistency by Sprint is like being called ugly by a frog, They've raised to an art form the practice of saying one thing to Wall Street and another to regulators, and of making wild assertions without a shred of factual support."
Think we got under Cicconi's skin?
So that begs the question, what did Sprint actually say the FCC which upset AT&T and Mr. Cicconi so badly?
Basically we pointed out how AT&T, Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile have said one thing to Wall Street and something completely different to Washington. We also pointed out that AT&T, in particular, has made numerous unsubstantiated claims about the T-Mobile takeover to the public and in filings to the FCC, it has hidden the details of these claims behind the Commission's protective order so the public is not aware of what the whole story is.
As Sprint said in its FCC filing:
"AT&T has spun one story to the public, while the facts it has hidden from the public tell quite a different story; it has told one version of its story in Washington, yet a vastly different version on Wall Street."
And contrary to Mr. Cicconi's claim that Sprint is, "without a shred of factual support," Sprint provided 33 citations in the public record which support Sprint's filing - many of the citations reference Mr. Cicconi's own words and those of AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson.
Perhaps instead of seeking to insult Sprint (and frogs), AT&T would be better served in clearing up the inconsistencies it has created in the public record.
